March 30, 2006

In an opinion written by Justice Francis X. Spina, the court upheld a 1913 statute that says that no out-of-state resident can get married in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in the person's home state, unless the person intends to live in Massachusetts....

The original lawsuit was filed by eight out-of-state couples and 12 cities and towns, claiming the 1913 statute was discriminatory and had been invalidated by the legalization of gay marriage in the state....

[Governor Mitt] Romney said in an interview: "This is an important victory for traditional marriage and for the right to each state to be sovereign as it defines marriage. It would have been wrong for this court to impose it's same sex ruling on the other 49 states of America."

Only one justice, Roderick L. Ireland, dissented, writing that "the commonwealth's resurrection of a moribund statute to deny nonresident same-sex couples access to marriage is not only troubling," but "also is fundamentally unfair."

108 comments:

Well, that makes pretty good sense, particularly in terms of states rights. If one is to believe that it is up to each state to decide who can marry whom, at what age etc. than I suppose a state can say that their marraige laws apply only to those in their state.Was that clear?The basic story is we are the United States of America; not some monolithic block of people. Each state has the right and responsibility to make laws appropriate to those in the state. It's really not more complicated than that.

Well, that makes pretty good sense, particularly in terms of states rights. If one is to believe that it is up to each state to decide who can marry whom, at what age etc. than I suppose a state can say that their marraige laws apply only to those in their state.

That makes sense . . . but it still seems wrong. Obviously other states shouldn't be obliged to find an MA married gay couple "married" within their own state law. And practically speaking, you won't enjoy -- in your home state -- any of the benefits of marriage. But a) people want to anyway obviously, and b) there are probably some benefits you can obtain under MA law, by having particular relationships governed by MA law. I don't know -- a corporation is based in MA and subject to certain marital-status-related provisions or something. And that doesn't seem quite right. Isn't there also federal caselaw about denying benefits to out-of-staters?

Anyhow, can't say anything properly without reading the opinion, but just looking at the outcome there, it seems a little dodgy. On the other hand, I thought Goodridge was extremely dodgy, so I suppose there's no helping it: I am not cut out to be a Massachusetts lawyer.

In an opinion written by Justice Francis X. Spina, the court upheld a 1913 statute that says that no out-of-state resident can get married in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in the person's home state, unless the person intends to live in Massachusetts

What happens when a couple wants to get married, and one party lives in MA and the other lives in, say, Rhode Island?

They have to tell the government that they plan to make their marital home in Taxacusetts? I'd sooner root for the Red Sox than affirm that I will live in a certain place upon being married by the state.

Just because it seems wrong doesn't make it wrong. You did not address the notion that states have a right to make laws they see as appropriate to their citizens.States are not required to decide if laws they pass will somehow impact citizens in another negatively - which by the way is an entirely personal view.

can't wait to see the first inter-racial couple from Alabama who are banned from getting married in Massachusetts. You'll have to wait for a very long time. Massachusetts does NOT ban inter-racial marraiges.This sounds like a straw man beign thrown up to avoid discussing the legality of the decision.Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the Mass Supreme Court re: allowing couples from out of the state to obtain Mass marraige licences?

can't wait to see the first inter-racial couple from Alabama who are banned from getting married in Massachusetts. You'll have to wait for a very long time. Massachusetts does NOT ban inter-racial marraiges.This sounds like a straw man beign thrown up to avoid discussing the legality of the decision.Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the Mass Supreme Court re: allowing couples from out of the state to obtain Mass marraige licences?

Re:Just because it seems wrong doesn't make it wrong. You did not address the notion that states have a right to make laws they see as appropriate to their citizens.States are not required to decide if laws they pass will somehow impact citizens in another negatively - which by the way is an entirely personal view.

Yes, hence my:

"Oh wait, don't I feel a fool! There's a statute on point. Nevermind."

Pragmatic L-word: the question is not whether Massachusetts bans interracial marriage, but whether Alabama does. Massachusetts bans out-of-staters from marrying when such marriages are not legal in their own states.

Interestingly, the MA Supreme Court recognizes a loophole here: couples from states (like Rhode Island) that haven't enacted a Defense of Marriage law, and that are presumably neutral on the gay marriage issue, can get married.

the question is not whether Massachusetts bans interracial marriage, but whether Alabama does.The questin is NOT about Alabama's state laws; it's about Mass law. And, Mass law seems comptlely consistent with the notion of the states ability to pass laws that seem appropriate for the citizens of their state.BTW, Alabama state law does NOT ban interracial maarraiges so why do you even bring it up?

The dissenting judge showed why he should not be a judge. The issue was whether the law in question is constitutional under Massachusetts' constitution. The issue was NOT whether the law was fair or discriminatory.

You are SO WRONG. Look at current Alabama law and you will see that there are NO prohibitions on inter-racial marraigae.And, I CANNOT believe you would actually beileve that it is true. Do you need to pass along obvious falsehoods to make your case.That is pretty sad...

For anyone interested in looking at current Alabama law, see here. I think Downtownlad is all wet here, but maybe the interracial marriage prohibition isn't contained in the marriage chapter (Title 30, Chapter 1).

well, the whole business strikes me as highly unethical, because I have no ethical qualms about letting gay couples get married (or parent for that matter).

Having sorted out the ethics involved, I have the luxury of wishing that the laws could simply follow what is fair and what is ethical.

Assuming a citizen holds the opposite negative view, then of course the original state court decision was bonkers. Those views let us all know just how unclean anything associated with LGBTQ people is, especially their making commitments to one another.

I remember back in college, every time we had a workshop about LGBTQ folks - the complaint would always come up, regular as acid rain in the Pacific Northwest, that it was just so sad or so unclean that the queers were such party animals. (I worked in student peer services out of the undergraduate deans' office.) Then somebody would wonder out loud why gays were innately impaired in committed relations. Now, the complaint has flip-flopped. It is committed relationships that are supposedly the epitome of filth, and danger, too, on top of filth. Whew. Then we are solemnly instructed about how each straight couple's marriage in USA is being devalued because these unclean lepers - faggots or dykes - can get married in Massachusetts.

In that case, the least Massachusetts should do to respect the offended feelings of some folks is to put some kind of warning sticker on the state gay marriage certificate, something perhaps that says the marriage is legally equal but still filthy and unclean in the eyes of some other citizens whose objections block gay marriage in other states.

Then of course the residents of Massachusetts would sue because the whole point of the original suit was to stop institutionalizing the legal and civil inferiorities of gay families with or without children.

Yes, the legal dance will continue, no doubt. But that little touches upon the impoverished deep sense of privilege, based on LGBTQ inferiorities in law, policy, and civil institutions. The ins and outs of the legal dancing cannot obscure the deeply impoverished empathy that prevents straight people from imagining what is it like to try to live your life - pretty much with the same expectations a straight person might typically have - only to bump into one of the jerky little barriers that still exist in law, policy, and institutional practices.

Many LGBTQ citizens don't even know such barriers and inferiorities exist these days - until suddenly a nurse is self-righteously questioning your status as a long-term partner of your beloved or as a co-parent of a sick child. Then all of a sudden, your inferior legal status is getting in the way of something really, really important in human and in ethical terms.

Common sense suggests that no straight couple would put up with any of this nonsense for even a minute, it is otherwise so self-evident to us and among us.

Using legal jargon or religious jargon or any other sort of discourse (which connotes both the uncleanness and/or the danger of not keeping LGBTQ folks inferior) only temporarily serves to disguise a frank lack of ethics and a remarkable failure of human empathy. So that is just the ticket. then.

It isn't all that long ago, remember, that the USA Supreme Court had to decide that married couples had a legal right to use any contraception they wished; or that unmarried couples or single people had a legal right to buy contraceptives.

All of this suggests two things to me. One is that we have lots and lots and lots of very sexually unhappy citizens - probably connected with their enduringly troubled sense of how unclean sex and the human body is, basically. Another is that such citizens must be even more deeply unhappy than that; because they not only seem to be having unhappy with themselves, but they also seem extremely interested in controlling their neighbor's sex lives.

How odd it is that such true believers need - positively need and require - some legal control over another citizen's body, mainly to enforce that citizen's inferior status. This would be sheer sadism if it were being acted out in a basement dungeon by institutional leaders dressed in leather from head to toe. Come to think of it, that is how I do view it - as if unhappy straight citizens wished to be sex masters, controlling the sex lives of their LGBTQ slaves who simply may not have an orgasm until the master says so.

Couples in Massachusetts: Try to be happy and kind to one another, despite all the accusations that are going to be laid at your feet for doing in civil terms what a straight couple takes entirely for granted.

Couples outside of Massachusetts: Sorry, we have no free lunch today. Please seek nourishment elsewhere - particularly difficult if you happen to live in one of those Inferiority States.

That means that of course all the lawyers will have lots of business, working out the terms of various institutions of inferiority, depending on the state.

To those who say gays are innately unethical - and their families should be forced to maintain the sorts of legal invisibility - or even the overt criminal status that used to go with individual gay life before Lawrence v. Texas was decided; I say, be careful. You will sometime have to walk a mile in the shoes you require the filthy faggots to wear, and believe me the toes pinch, and the nails wear through all to quickly.

I remember back in college, every time we had a workshop about LGBTQ folks - the complaint would always come up, regular as acid rain in the Pacific Northwest, that it was just so sad or so unclean that the queers were such party animals. (I worked in student peer services out of the undergraduate deans' office.) Then somebody would wonder out loud why gays were innately impaired in committed relations. Now, the complaint has flip-flopped. It is committed relationships that are supposedly the epitome of filth, and danger, too, on top of filth. Whew.

Well, there you have it. The history of gay/lesbian trials to become equal citizens as described by a straight person. It's pretty accurate, but lacks the first hand understanding of just how incredibily unfair it is.

No one said they had to make sense to the other 49 states. That's the whole idea of a United States. It allows each to state to enact laws that seems appropriate and reasonable for their citizens. If it appears that that the currently elected representatives do not reflect the citizens of the state, they are replaced by someone who more closely reflects the beliefs of their constituency.

I'm tired of subsidizing straight people. Which is exactly what wedding presents are. A form of extortion.

Give me a break. Extortion? Nobody is forcing you to go, pal, and if that's going to be your attitude, they'd probably much rather you didn't. Seriously. You aren't going to change peoples' minds by being a narcissistic jerk.

You seem very pragmatic, which is good. Your view on states rights is correct. You are also correct when you say gay marriage is inevitible.

Here's what I want to know: You compared interracial marriage to gay marriage. Do you think either interracial marriage or gay marriage is wrong? If you think interracial marriage and gay marriage are both right(s), do you see any moral difference between legal restrictions on either? If not, being a pragmatist, would you tolerate a society that placed restrictions on interracial marriage? If so, how long? Forever?

Do you think either interracial marriage or gay marriage is wrong? If you think interracial marriage and gay marriage are both right(s), do you see any moral difference between legal restrictions on either? If not, being a pragmatist, would you tolerate a society that placed restrictions on interracial marriage? If so, how long? Forever?

I do think both inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are morally and legally right.

No, I wouldn't tolerate a society that placed restrictions on inter-racial marriage any more than I tolerate the current society that places restrictions on same-sex marrige. For that reason I vote at every opportunity to put people in office that will further my goal of a society that does not restrict marriage based upon a religous belief - it doesn't matter to me what the religion is - this country is based upon seperation of church and state - so I want religous beliefs kept out of the laws in my state.

esk said: "I’ve often wondered why gay couples would go to MA to get married if their own state doesn’t recognize it. When they return home they’re not considered legally married, are they?"

Well, it could be because they love and are committed to each other and want a symbol of that.

In addition to all the legal goodies, marriage is after all about a couple's commitment and has a large emotional component. I think that's getting lost in the debate and needs to be kept in the foreground.

Opponents of SSM may like to think they're 'defending' marriage or standards or something. They're also hurting lots of people in very direct ways.

I think it's all that, uh, "IWAN" stuff there. I understand (and sympathise) with the argument and the frustration behind it, but that has to be just about the crudest choice of words possible.

Re: taking until the 21st century to repeal a law that has no legal force (being in conflict with the Constitution) -- it's in conflict with the Constitution. It has no legal force. So it's just a symbolic gesture, that's all, repealing it.

And even if not -- Re: Downtownlad's bogeyman of Massachussetts courts enforcing Alabama law -- common sense should tell us that if a law is unconstitutional when enforced by Alabama courts, it's not going to become Constitutional suddenly because it's being enforced by Massachussetts courts.

Re your comments about attending straight weddings, eating the food, and then dramatically withholding the expected gift: this is not a strategy calculated to warm the hearts of the undecided and make them flock to support gay marriage.

Prior to the Goodridge case, there was actually a lot of debate within the gay community as to the desirability of adopting a legal concept tailored for hetero couples. After Goodridge, of course, everybody jumped on the marriage bandwagon, but perhaps there was something to the idea that a new legal form needed to be devised for gay couples. Crafting such a new legal form could be done most appropriately through the legislative process, which would defuse some of the opposition to changes perceived as imposed by judicial overreaching. Finally, as we have seen from previous threads on this topic, the word "marriage" evokes deeply-held feelings in many people which are simply not amenable to rational argument.

I have had a single partner for over 10 years, visit Provincetown each summer, and could (somewhat tenuously) claim Massachusetts residence through my family, but have never felt inclined to marry there. Somehow it would not feel entirely comfortable, like trying on clothes that were tailored for someone else.

I do believe in States rights. Massachusetts has every right to have this law.

But I also think it is an obscenely bigoted law, one with DIRECT origins in racist thoughts (to stop the "exporting" of inter-racial marriage).

And let's face it. EVERY single person on this board who is against gay marriage would have been against inter-racial marriage as well, as little as 50 years ago. Every single one of them. And before you object, please explain to me why you think you would have been one of the progressive 4% of white people who favored inter-racial marriage in the 1950's.

You were on the wrong side of the civil rights battle then, and you're on the wrong side today.

And 40 years ago - I won't let these people forget it. I'll have zero qualms telling my sister's grandkids in 40 years hence, what a bigot their grandma was.

Re your comments about attending straight weddings, eating the food, and then dramatically withholding the expected gift: this is not a strategy calculated to warm the hearts of the undecided and make them flock to support gay marriage.

I couldn't give a crap about winning hearts. Most of my family members treated me like crap when I came out, and they now realize that I hold a grudge for life. My parents now realize that they have destroyed what was a great relationship with me, and I'm pretty confident that they will now go to their graves much more unhappy than they would have been had they treated me with respect. Very sad, but oh well, life goes on. As much as they try to make amends, it just aint gonna happen. I treat them with respect, but the love, the relationship - it's gone. Over. Done with. They've shown me how shallow they really are, and no pleading on their part is going to convince me otherwise.

But the strategy I've recommended, while not winning hearts and minds, might very well win us equality. It's about time straight people had a financial incentive in gay equality. If every straight person had $2000 locked up in an account, that they couldn't access until gays could marry, I can guarantee you that many of them would quickly get over their reservations.

Maybe I'll put the same restrictions on my will. Nobody inherits a dime until gays can marry. There's nothing selfish about this. I myself have no prospects of getting married anytime soon. I just want to see some wrongs righted. And the sooner the better.

Well, downtownlad has my vote for the boy most likely to self-destruct.

Let's see: wrote off his folks and family, writes off all straight weddings, writes off everyone posting here as racists-who-would've-voted-to-ban-interracial-marriages, and writes off those who exposed his false "fact" about Alabama (and then he had the gall to complain that he was still right ..due to some unexplained umbrage).

Oh, the uber-outrage of downtownlad; it's almost palpable. His keyboard is missing m and s from pounding the letters so hard, while the remainder are gummed up from all the angry spittle. Beware, he will attend your wedding but not leave a gift. Beware his wrath!

Exhibit #1 in my reasons against gay marriage: downtownlad. He doesn't need to convince you with reasoned arguments, because "you're wrong and you're evil and I hate you! Waaaaaaaah!"

And this is why we have gay marriage in one state, civil unions in another, and nothing in the other 48, not to mention the eleven or so states that enacted constitutional amendments barring not only gay marriage but civil unions as well.

Wedding gift idea for downtownlad: Just send a nicely wrapped box, inside of which there is a slip of paper saying "Redeemable for [name of gift] when gay marriage is legal in the United States." They'll love it. I think anyone getting married ought to spend some of their wedding time feeling guilty and bad that gay couples can't marry. Maybe you can write that into the vows.

Pragmatic said: Alabama state law does NOT ban interracial marriages so why do you even bring it up? Downtownlad asked how long it would take before an interracial couple from AL was banned from marrying in MA. You responded "a very long time," because there is no ban on interracial marriage in MA. My only point is that it is irrelevant whether MA bans interracial marriage. If AL bans it, then AL residents cannot legally be married here in MA. (Whether AL currently bans interracial marriage is irrelevant to the point I'm clarifying.)

And BTW: I think the 1913 law has been shown (not sure by whom, but probably the AG Tom Reilly) to have been enacted due to differing standards on marriages between cousins and such, not based on race, but I could be wrong on that.

My only point is that it is irrelevant whether MA bans interracial marriage. If AL bans it, then AL residents cannot legally be married here in MA. (Whether AL currently bans interracial marriage is irrelevant to the point I'm clarifying.)

I don't see why it's constitutional for an MA court to enforce a law, when it would be unconstitutional for an AL court to enforce that law. Is MA special somehow? Does the Constitution not apply to them?

Ann - Yup - that's the idea - to make them feel guilty. If marriage is now clearly recognized as a bigoted institution, why shouldn't we make straight people think about that. I was more thinking of setting up an actual account, so that they'd have the gift - but wouldn't be able to access it until marriage is legal for gays.

It could accrue interest and everything.

You're a lawyer - I'm sure it's doable, right?

Yeah - they might be pissed off the day of the wedding - but five years later, they're going to be like "Dammit, I want that damn money".

Sounds like Pogo is self-destructing over this. He's already pissed off that some of his wedding gifts are going to come with strings attached and he's going absolutely ballistic over this. So greedy.

I should clarify my position. This only applies to gay friends and relatives who OPPOSE gay marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage don't need to have these restrictions.

And opponents of gay marriage. Well since they've already deemed that gay people are second class citizens, I for one, feel zero need to start sucking up to them. And if I make them feel bad on their wedding day - good.

What on earth would give you that idea? Cor. Talk about "presumptuous." And besides, all I'm doing there is pointing out that he's clearly making fun of your threat to go to peoples weddings and not leave gifts!!! "ZOMG!"-as they say.

Clearly you've got money. For most people, yes, $1000 is rather a lot (the median income in this country is what -- $37,000, I think?).

And I'm sure Pogo and Balfegor think that is just hunky dory, what the bigot father did.

Well, I think it's rather unkind, not because of the "bigotry," but because your friend is his son, and denying one's own son his inheritance is not a proper fatherly act. If a son owes his father filial piety, the father in his turn should strive to be generous in his treatment of his children.

On the other hand, these kinds of provisions were not unheard of in the past, I understand. Out of a worry that if you gave a single man a large quantity of money all at once, he'd blow it all on drink, gambling, and loose women.

But god forbid a gay person dares and gets uppity themself.

It's fine for you to do that. Go ahead! It's rude, at a wedding, but you obviously feel they've already cast the first insult, and insulted you deeply. I just think it's awfully funny -- is that so hard to understand?

After experiencing your nonstop shrill diatribes, it's amazing that anyone, straight OR gay, would invite you to their wedding.

Please consider that securing the rights of gay people requires some participation in the political process, which in turn requires some ability to persuade. Shrieking at everyone does little to support our cause.

balfegor: I don't see why it's constitutional for an MA court to enforce a law, when it would be unconstitutional for an AL court to enforce that law. I agree, actually, and was just using the example on the table. Change it to something that passes muster: AL bans 1st cousins from marrying, MA allows it: AL 1st cousins can't marry in MA. That's all.

downtownlad, I still can't shake the thought of these $1000 wedding gifts you routinely hand out, but in my head I'm wondering what kind of gift would make it worth it for me to invite to my wedding someone who's so willing to politicize it.

The year I was married in Massachusetts they were sort of enforcing a rule that only residents of MA could marry, gay or straight. It asked right on the form if you "intended" to live in MA. Luckily, my wife still had a valid MA mailing address, or I don't know what we would have done. I lived in New Hampshire, and we really wanted to get married at Harvard Memorial Church. I guess it would all depend on the meaning of "intend" or "live in."

It's convenient at least, that future (straight) marriages will be allowed without question, and also good for us that New Hampshire allows interracial marriages.

Yeah - I don't put up with the charade that I should be "so happy" for my friends and relatives on their wedding day.

It is such a fraud. Nobody feels that way.

A wedding is either going to be good or bad, depending on how good a bash they throw. Everyone knows that. People look forward to the good weddings (at a Chateau in Burgundy for example) and dread the bad ones (Holiday Inn).

The service itself is always (yawn) a drag and everyone is just counting the minutes until the bar is open.

I'm thinking that "downtownlad" is just someone's idea of a great Internet persona. I mean, c'mon, really: A wedding is either going to be good or bad, depending on how good a bash they throw. Everyone knows that. People look forward to the good weddings (at a Chateau in Burgundy for example) and dread the bad ones (Holiday Inn).

The service itself is always (yawn) a drag and everyone is just counting the minutes until the bar is open.

First, I've stayed in a few chateaus in Burgundy, and while they sound good on paper, the reality is that they are drafty and have bad plumbing. We won't even get into the uncomfortable furniture.

Second, if the service is always such a yawn, why are you agitating for gay marriage rights? The party may be fun, but the point of the celebration is what happens during the service.

Last:it's polite to decline invitations you to events you do not wish to attend. If you hate weddings so much, don't go.

Second, if the service is always such a yawn, why are you agitating for gay marriage rights? The party may be fun, but the point of the celebration is what happens during the service.

Wrong. The service is purely religious. Absolutely zero rights are granted to you at that time. Zero. None. Zip.

I'm not agitating for marriage rights so I can throw a big party. I doubt I'd have one. I'm agitating for marriage rights in the name of freedom and liberty.

The real stuff happens when when I actually sign the government documents. The right to not testify against my spouse in court, Social Security benefits, the right to make medical decisions for my spouse, and over 1100 other rights. Rights you can't get otherwise.

I can already get married by a religious institution. Many churches and temples will marry gay people. The problem is that the government won't recognize those marriages.

And sorry - but weddings at chateaus in Burgundy are amazing. At least the one I went to.

You should be content, now that your bitter comments about weddings have been as putty in the hands of Joan (whose attacks on gay marriage you may recall from the other threads on this subject).Joan does score a logical point, though. If you view weddings and marriage so darkly, why inflict them on the unsuspecting gay community?

Despite his drama-queenish overkill that serious propoents of SSM dread, Downtown lad has brought up an important point. By now, it's easier for GoL (gay or lesbian) couples to get religious ceremonies and recognition than civil ceremonies and state recognition.

As I've said, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Same sex couples can (and do) set up common households and even adopt children (in free, more civilized, states at least). Not recognizing this fact does the institution of marriage more harm than legal recognition of same-sex pairing does. If marriage really goes down the tubes, then Maggie Gallagher has a _lot_ more to answer for than does Dan Savage.

True (rather than politically opportunisitic) opponents of SSM need to be figuring out ways of stopping same sex cohabitation and stopping religious observance of same sex marriage. Anything less is _deeply_ hypocritical (or jsut palin hypocritical) the one thing downtown lad and I agree on is not making discrimination _comfortable_ for the discriminators/privileged (there are plenty of Althouses around ready to bow and scrape after all).

Re: Michael FarrisNot recognizing this fact does the institution of marriage more harm than legal recognition of same-sex pairing does.

I think the harm actually has nothing to do with same-sex couples doing it -- old men and their catamites used to do it in previous generations anyhow, to no ill-effect, because no one expected (or, expects, really) gays to marry each other. The quasi-marital-cohabitation-harm to the "institution of marriage" is that heterosexual young men and women cohabit together in conditions that would have demanded marriage and (comparatively) irrevocable commitment, but face no consequences -- not even social consequences -- in much of the country. There's no longer a clear line between "married" and "unmarried," and that blurring is a significant element of the underlying problem with marriage in American society today. "Gay marriage" is just a distraction.

I don't see any mechanism by which reiterating that "no, gay marriage isn't marriage" could have any effect on, let alone reverse the decline of the institution.

Michael Farris, that last dig at Ann was really bizarre, given that Ann has said on more than one occasion that she is in favor of legalizing same sex marriage.

I find religious "recognition" of same sex marriage bizarre in the extreme. As a Catholic, in a sacramental marriage, I know there is no way that two members of the same sex can be joined in the sacrament of marriage. Religions that choose to bless same sex unions have strayed far from their roots. I realize many people think that's a good thing. I don't.

I find religious "recognition" of same sex marriage bizarre in the extreme. As a Catholic, in a sacramental marriage, I know there is no way that two members of the same sex can be joined in the sacrament of marriage.

Michael Farris, that last dig at Ann was really bizarre, given that Ann has said on more than one occasion that she is in favor of legalizing same sex marriage.

Well, so am I, and downtownlad has sputtered in rage at me anyway. Although that's probably because I'm in favour of legalising gay marriage, but not in favour of gay marriage, and find all the arguments I have yet heard in its favour tendentious and unpersuasive.

Joan: "that last dig at Ann was really bizarre, given that Ann has said on more than one occasion that she is in favor of legalizing same sex marriage."

Yes, but she wants so much to be _nice_, even to those who cannot be reached by reason or compassion (like you!). I'm willing to be civil to those who can be convinced, I have no interest in those who are beyond the pale. You are dinosaurs and deserve to be treated as such.

Again, I repeat, more and more gay and lesbian people are creating more and more marriage-like bonds. If you're against same-sex civil marriage then you should be against same sex cohabitation (= common law marriage). And you should be in favor of taking children from sex-sex couples who are raising them.

Do you (I'm talking to you! Joan!) want to take children away from the people who are raising them to put them in institutions until more fitting (heterosexual) couples may choose to raise them?

"I'm in favour of legalising gay marriage, but not in favour of gay marriage"

That's very fuzzy, but you're on the side of the angels, even if you don't understand all the why's and wherefore's (but love can conquer ranks and therefore...) God bless you. As for downtown lad, drama queens will be drama queens, just try to enjoy them for the color they bring into the lives of the more stable*.

*I usually cry bullshit when people try to pain the extreme left and right together but I bow in the dust to the person that pointed out that both the extreme right and extreme left want to see gay (more accurately transgered males) in the same way - as a freak show in life's rich pageant.

We passed about 700 replies over the past few threads on this topic, and all in a reasonably civil tone. But this one (to judge from the tone of the posts left and from the way posts have been getting deleted) I think our luck and self-control ran out. A pity.

Balfegor: "We passed about 700 replies over the past few threads on this topic, and all in a reasonably civil tone. But this one (to judge from the tone of the posts left and from the way posts have been getting deleted) I think our luck and self-control ran out."

Yeah, I think this is the thread that proves that longer isn't better. This has turned into a lot of petulant footstomping. So downtownlad is really, really mad. We get it. But he's also apparently quite rich, so he's far from the big victim he wants to be seen as.

And Michael Farris is keen on trying to persuade people to agree with him, but ONLY people who do in the end agree with him. The others can go to hell, or be treated like dinosaurs... however one treats dinosaurs.

So, we get it. Why does the conversation go on and on then? Just got to get one more stomp of the foot in?

"Michael Farris is keen on trying to persuade people to agree with him, but ONLY people who do in the end agree with him. The others can go to hell, or be treated like dinosaurs... however one treats dinosaurs."

Not quite, I'm keen on reaching the reachable and intent on disregarding the rest. I'm reminded of the very wise words of Lech Walesa before he became a sad parody of himself. (paraphrasing) "Don't burn down communist headquarters, ignore them."

One doesn't try to train dinosaurs or appease them or treat their lifestyle as reasonable afte the comet has struck, one ignores them until they either decide to evolve or stay in the muck and face extinction on their own (very impressive no doubt) terms.

So downtownlad is really, really mad. We get it. But he's also apparently quite rich, so he's far from the big victim he wants to be seen as.

Wrong Ann. I'm not really, really mad. So you obviously don't get it.

I'm just really, really opinionated on this issue. I totally get that some straight people don't like gay marriage and don't like gay people. Like half my family, who I still have to deal with on a regular basis, even if I don't like them that much. So please tell me why I have to like them back?

But I don't see any reason why I should have moral relativism when it comes to their opinion. I think they're wrong and I don't mind telling them so. Just like I've told my family that I think they're wrong. I still talk to them. I still treat them with civility.

And in no way am I acting like a "victim". To be vocal about your rights does not make one a victim. In fact - it's the opposite.

And yes - I guess I can be considered rich. I work hard for my money and intend to keep it. Do I face obstacles because I'm gay? Not in the workplace. Only in the eyes of the law. Does that bother me? Yes. Does it stop me from living my life? Of course not.

Michael Farris asked: Do you (I'm talking to you! Joan!) want to take children away from the people who are raising them to put them in institutions until more fitting (heterosexual) couples may choose to raise them?

No. But I've been through all that on the other thread, and see no reason to rehash it here. Why do you care what I think, anyway? You've already said you don't, and I'm wondering why I even bothered to answer. I guess it seems rude not to... not that it would matter to you.

Michael, go over and read the amazing comment thread if you want to know what I think. After 415 comments, Marghlar and I have reached the end of a productive discussion. Some other people emoted a lot, too. It really is an amazing thread; no need to get into it here, again.